from using WMD's (which turned out to scotch mist). It had nothing originally to do with stopping islamic terrorists.

Hitchens is rewriting history again.

We did go into Afghanistan but only after the ruling taliban refused to hand over al-qaeda terrorists based there.

Prior to 9/11 nobody was talking about toppling the taliban, who with Pakistani and Saudi support, were busy creating a islamic fundamentalist state. Just like nobody has suggested toppling any of the other Islamic fundamentalist states.

If we really are serious about stopping the tide of Islamic fundamentalism why do we waste our resources in afghanistan saving Afghan Islamic fundamentalist villagers from the Afghan Islamic fundamentalist taliban whilst turning a blind eye to the Saudi financed Wahabism inflitration of mosques around the world?

I agree with the main point of your post and was going to make a post pointing out this very fact, until I saw yours.

Terrorism became a problem in Iraq as a direct result of our actions, let's not forget that. We squandered a number of years in that country precisely because we didn't know what we were doing and how to relate to the people of Iraq. We're doing better, but the war is a long way from won and Iraq is still largely a mess. Let's not complicate things by rewriting the narrative and motives of the invasion.

Iraq...make'em our good buddy, and a stable democracy in the ME...or was it to protect us from WMD's....no, no...it was to punish Saddam for backing 9/11 terrorists....hhummm...oh dear...and didn't we invade Afganistan to get bin Laden?? Oh my...overthrought the Taliban? The War to End All Wars? Make the World Safe For Democracy?....or was it to Stop the Domino Effect?...do you sense a theme here?

which is why we Brits are getting disenchanted with Afghanistan.

It might be the right thing to do to send troops into combat in Afghanistan but when your own government cannot come up with a coherent and consistant arguement as to why we should be there, regardless of the growing body count, then why should joe public offer its unconditional support.

Armchair crusaders like Hitchens can bob and weave to catch whatever the moment offers them as justification but we don't vote for them and they don't set foreign policy.

The authorization for the use of force had many reasons, and WMDs and Saddam's long and open involvement with terrorism were among them. You seriously think Saddam, WHO HAD BEEN CAUGHT BEFORE WITH A WMD PROGRAM THAT HE HAD LOUDLY DENIED HAVING, was a falsely accused innocent little lamb, and as soon as the crumbling sanctions finally fell would not have immediately resumed using dual use material and presented the world with an Iran-style dilemma? Let's recall that he openly harbored Abu Nidal, the world's most notorious pre Bin Laden terrorist, and openly trumpeted his paying of set-for-life rewards to the families of suicide bombers. And tried to assassinate former Pres Bush 1993 (which alone justified resuming war). Etc etc Our insanely passive policy regarding Saddam for 12 long years of violations of the 1991 peace agreement that HE begged for and agreed to after losing his war of aggression should not make continued inaction seem normal, practical, or sane. Overthrowing him was legal, necessary, and ridiculously overdue.

You have a good point about the Saudis, who are a true menace, and with their madrassas have turned Pakistan into a roiling sea of madmen. Their huge income of hundreds of billions annually needs to stop, and the only way to do it given OPEC's permanent domination of world oil markets is to switch to an alternate fuel. The most affordable, practical, and easy to transition to is alcohol fuel. See Robert Zubrin's book "Energy Victory" for more, or visit EnergyVictory.net

Killing Saddam and his regime was a good idea.

Subsequently taking 30,000 American casualties casualties, virtually all from driving back and forth across nightly replenished minefields, was (and remains) dumb as shit.

Boots on the ground living in town was and is smarter and more effective than the "hide in desert bases and drive through town to get ambushed" era. That's the change the surge provided which was more than just more troops but smarter tactics. Let's not freak out about the casualties though. While each is painful to the families and the man (if he survived) the casualty rate we are undergoing is EXTREMELY low by word-historical standards, and by past rates in past US wars. Let's not vindicate the Islamists' claim that we are a soft nation with low attention spans, without the grit and toughness and persistence necessary to stay in the fight.

true. and I'm too old to "freak out" about anything (whatever that means)

but, as the occupation was unnecessary to US security (regardless of how it was executed), so were the casualties.

and that's regrettable, because no matter how low the casualty rate, each dead guy is 100% dead

steelbucket:

from using WMD's (which turned out to scotch mist). It had nothing originally to do with stopping islamic terrorists.

Hitchens is rewriting history again.

No, it's always been the anti-Bushites, eager to disprove anything he said, who maintained that our primary purpose was to "stop Saddam from using WMDs." There were half a dozen solid reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein and all of them were argued before the invasion. Most of them were preventative - if he didn't have WMDs, it was not because he didn't want them or didn't intend to get them. Likewise, he often supported jihadist concepts, so it was logical to expect him to come support them against us - eventually, if not immediately. But the greatest reason for taking him out was that his conventional army still represented a threat to the oil fields of our allies. Our containment regime was breaking down and it became expedient to remove him

It's a strawman to ask why we don't counter Saudi Wahabism - we firstly must do what we can within the realm of the possible. As a UN member, we already had responsibility for countering Saddam. We had a real problem with Iraq that wasn't going away simply because some of our citizens suddenly noticed that we also had a problem with the Taliban.

Hitchens isn't rewriting history - he's pointing out history that you take pains to ignore.

Let's not vindicate the Islamists' claim that we are a soft nation with low attention spans, without the grit and toughness and persistence necessary to stay in the fight.

Are you currently a member of the US Armed Forces? If you are, I applaud your service to our nation. If you are not, I hope you are prepared to enlist so as to demonstrate your personal "grit and toughness and persistence" in this "war" about which you are so enthusiastic.

cogitorum:

Are you currently a member of the US Armed Forces? If you are, I applaud your service to our nation. If you are not, I hope you are prepared to enlist so as to demonstrate your personal "grit and toughness and persistence" in this "war" about which you are so enthusiastic.

I call bullshit on cogitorum's strawman.

And, lest you have to ask, yes, I first took the oath forty years ago and I still work for DOD.

I call bullshit on cogitorum's strawman.

And, lest you have to ask, yes, I first took the oath forty years ago and I still work for DOD.

what strawman? I merely asked whether another poster was personally committed to a war about which he/she was apparently so enthusiastic. I happen to believe that it's immoral to advocate a war in which you are not prepared to put your own ass on the line.

And to save you the trouble of asking, no, I have never served; if our nation was attacked by the armed forces of another nation, I would offer my services (my bad eyesight notwithstanding). The so-called Bush/Cheney "war on terror" is a futile and dishonest exercise which has brought our nation nothing but disrespect, notwithstanding the bravery and honor of the members of our armed forces who have paid the price for it.

cogitorum:

I call bullshit on cogitorum's strawman.

And, lest you have to ask, yes, I first took the oath forty years ago and I still work for DOD.

what strawman? I merely asked whether another poster was personally committed to a war about which he/she was apparently so enthusiastic. I happen to believe that it's immoral to advocate a war in which you are not prepared to put your own ass on the line.

And to save you the trouble of asking, no, I have never served; if our nation was attacked by the armed forces of another nation, I would offer my services (my bad eyesight notwithstanding). The so-called Bush/Cheney "war on terror" is a futile and dishonest exercise which has brought our nation nothing but disrespect, notwithstanding the bravery and honor of the members of our armed forces who have paid the price for it.

First, your own ability and willingness to go to war does not necessarily supersede the rationale for war, especially if the people fighting believe the war is just. If the guy was in a wheelchair, obviously he CANNOT be in the front lines but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have the opinion about the justification for war. If you had no legs during WW2 and you were in one of the Allies' countries, that doesn't mean that you wouldn't believe that Hitler or Japan shouldn't have been stopped.

Second, people are more willing to go to war than you would believe, they just believe in defending their homes more than going overseas to fight. If some group were to invade the US, you would see a much more bellicose nature coming out of the nations inhabitants. And since you are eventually going to ask me how I know this, the answer is simple, their immediate survival depends on them going to war.

Is there anything to be enchanted by in Afganistan?? I'm not really sure of the "implide promise" when a country invades another....since the last country U.S. "invaded" pre-emptively...was Mexico in the mid-1800's....prelude to our Civil War....although in Afganistan the U.S. at least had some provocation....and Taliban government was given the choice to turn over bin Laden,or "face the consequences"..but that is neither here nor there at this point. Hitch is just blowing smoke for editorial effect anyway.